ITAT Kolkata Judgments — January 2025

The Tribunal, following previous Coordinate Bench decisions, observed that the assessee demonstrated regular business activity, cash and credit sales, and that the deposits were from available cash balances. It was held that merely depositing cash during demonetization, when sources are explained through business sales, does not warrant an addition under Section 68 or invocation of Section 115BBE. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the issue of limitation was a purely legal question, and as the assessment order dated 30.12.2015 was served on 05.01.2016, beyond the statutory deadline of 31.12.2015 as per Section 153, it was hopelessly barred by limitation. Citing various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was non-est and a nullity in law, and consequently quashed it along with the consequential penalty order under Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal held that the assessee had clearly declared and offered the income from house property and interest income for taxation. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was considered a double taxation due to a technical mistake in reporting.

The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. It directed the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee, cautioning the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) could pass an appropriate order based on available records.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. It granted the assessee liberty to reinstate the appeal if the Form F-1 is not accepted by the Department for any reason.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings, finding that the AO had properly applied his mind and obtained due approval. However, the Tribunal set aside the addition of Rs. 8.00 lakh made under Section 69, ruling that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of genuine sale of equity shares and the department failed to conduct any inquiry to disprove the genuineness of the transaction.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's cross-objections on the merits of the addition. It ruled that the AO acted on 'borrowed satisfaction' without independent enquiry, and the addition under Section 69A was invalid as the assessee was not found to own or possess the alleged valuable articles. The legal issue concerning the validity of the reopening assessment was not adjudicated by the Tribunal.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to participation in the VSVS 2024 scheme, which the DR did not oppose. The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to revive the appeal if the VSVS-24 scheme is unsuccessful for any reason.

The Tribunal found that the notice dated 28.07.2022 was invalid as it was issued in the name of another assessee and not generated through the prescribed income tax portal. Additionally, applying the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b), the Tribunal ruled that the notice for AY 2015-16 was time-barred as the six-year limitation period had expired by 31.03.2022. Consequently, the assessment framed under Section 147 was quashed.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding limitation, finding it to be a purely legal issue. It held that the assessment order, having been served on 05.01.2016 instead of on or before 31.12.2015 as required by Section 153, was barred by limitation, non-est, and a nullity. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed, and the related penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) was also quashed.

The Tribunal found that the PCIT's revisional order, which directed the fresh assessment, had itself been quashed by an earlier order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on the quashed revisional order became non-est and infructuous, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request. The assessee was granted liberty to seek revival of the appeal by filing a miscellaneous application if the VSVS-24 scheme is unsuccessful for any reason.

The tribunal found the assessee had discharged its onus by providing identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions for all subscribers, noting they had sufficient funds. Citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents (Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and Rohini Builders), the tribunal held that additions are not justified merely due to delayed or incorrect-FY documents from subscribers, especially when the Revenue has powers to pursue inquiries. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.

The ITAT, considering the principle of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). The matter was remitted back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who was also cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the income of the assessee, being a recognized provident fund, is unconditionally exempt under Section 10(25)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal further held that the assessee is statutorily not required to file a return of income under Section 139 of the Act, and the filing of a return does not invalidate the exemption. Therefore, the income was mistakenly brought to tax.

The ITAT, noting the CIT(A)'s dismissal without considering merits, set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals). This was done to ensure natural justice, providing the assessee one final opportunity to present its case, with a caution to cooperate. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the AO primarily relied on the non-production of a director of the subscriber company, failing to adequately examine the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal found that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions were sufficiently proved by the submitted documents.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal, which was not opposed by the Ld. DR. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to revive it by filing a miscellaneous application if the VSVS-24 application proves unsuccessful.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law because the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, which is a sine qua non for assuming jurisdiction, was issued by an ITO who lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. While the ACIT who framed the assessment had jurisdiction, they failed to issue a fresh notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal emphasized that Section 292BB does not cure a complete absence of jurisdiction and, following multiple High Court and Supreme Court precedents, quashed the assessment order.

The Tribunal found the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) to be invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to specify the precise charge against the assessee (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) by not striking off the irrelevant limb. Relying on High Court precedents, the Tribunal held that such a defective notice cannot sustain a penalty, and thus set aside all penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024 which directs subordinate authorities not to challenge orders before the Tribunal if the tax effect is below Rs. 60,00,000/- and the case does not fall under specified exceptions. The Revenue retains the liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for revival if re-verification reveals a higher tax effect or the case falls within exceptions.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had only earned salary, interest, commission, and dividend income, and no business income. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and restored the case to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to SCPL for financial advisory services did not qualify as royalty or fees for technical services under the India-Singapore DTAA. The Tribunal found that SCPL did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and the services rendered were advisory in nature, not entailing the transfer of technical knowledge or any specific rights. Consequently, the assessee was not obligated to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had gone into the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and prayed to withdraw the appeal, to which the DR did not object. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the revenue's appeal. It reiterated that additions cannot be made to completed/unabated assessments under Section 153A/143(3) without incriminating material found during the search, citing the Supreme Court's ruling. The Tribunal also noted that the tax effect of the case was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT for filing appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. It granted the assessee the liberty to revive these appeals by filing necessary miscellaneous applications if the VSVS-24 scheme proves unsuccessful for any reason.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions based on a previous order by the ITAT for the same assessee and AY. The revenue's appeal was dismissed both on merits and tax effect, as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed Form 10B in due time and that there was no discrepancy. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim exemption under Section 11, and the demand raised was erroneous and deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee the liberty to file a miscellaneous application to revive the appeal if the VSVS-24 scheme application is unsuccessful for any reason. The revenue's representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to revive it if the VSVS-24 resolution is unsuccessful.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted the assessee the liberty to file a necessary miscellaneous application to revive the appeal if the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 is unsuccessful for any reason.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, noting the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 and the lack of opposition from the Departmental Representative. The assessee was granted the liberty to revive the appeals by filing necessary miscellaneous applications if the VSVS-24 scheme is not successful for any reason.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal by filing a miscellaneous application if the DTVSVS 2024 settlement proves unsuccessful for any reason.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without discussing the merits. Considering the assessee's condonation petition for delayed filing and their submission of new evidence, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for a fresh hearing, directing the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity to the assessee and consider the documents filed.

The Tribunal held that there was no requirement for TDS deduction u/s 192 or 194C for the payments made for salary, wages, and job work. Therefore, the disallowance made u/s 40A(ia) was not justified.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the Departmental Representative did not oppose it. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if unsuccessful in the VSVS-24 scheme.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's income was commission, not gross sales, and this commission was below the prescribed limit for Section 44AB. Therefore, the requirement to get accounts audited was not attracted, and consequently, the penalty u/s 271B was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice and penalty order were contradictory, with the notice citing 'inaccurate particulars' while the order stated 'concealment of income'. This discrepancy indicated a lack of clarity and mechanical initiation of penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's sales tax liability, classified as long-term, was unpaid during the relevant assessment year. Deduction for such liability is allowed only upon actual payment. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify actual payments made by the assessee in subsequent years and allow the deduction u/s 43B accordingly.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations, a valid contention was raised regarding the transaction being sale proceeds from shares, which was not adequately considered. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard, emphasizing cooperation from the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte without providing the assessee with adequate opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination on merits, giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer in the interest of justice. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte due to improper service of notice on an outdated email address, denying the assessee an adequate opportunity. The dismissal solely on procedural grounds without examining merits was not justified.